Martin Whitfield
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“To ask the Scottish Government, regarding any impact on its energy policy and strategy, and in light of reports that Torness nuclear power station is due to close by 2030, what its response is to the United Kingdom Government’s new fusion strategy, which aims to deliver thousands of jobs and long-term energy security. (S6O-05690)”
“I ask members to note my entry in the members’ register of interests. As we come to the conclusion of today’s debate, I rise to offer the full support of Scottish Labour for the Restraint and Seclusion in Schools (Scotland) Bill.”
“The last few motions before us today are the final motions from the committee designed to put the standing orders book in its best possible state for the next session. The first motion, regarding the sixth report, relates to cross-party groups. We have had some challenges this session with the compliance of cross-party groups.”
“Last year’s fostering and adoption statistics show that children who are going through the adoption system face significant delays, with some waiting for six months or longer.”
“I will dwell on the comments he made as convener of the Education, Children and Young People Committee, because it is a tribute to him that he saw, in that committee, the ability to fulfil a role that is crucial for committees in a unicameral Parliament.”
“The Presiding Officer: The next question is, that motion S6M-21167, in the name of Graeme Dey, on a motion on legislative consent for the Armed Forces Bill, which is UK legislation, be agreed to.”
The complete record
Every one of 844 lines we hold for Martin Whitfield, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 17.
“As we have heard, some inquiries have taken upwards of a decade to solve a problem that would, one would have hoped, already have been solved. However, I suggest that particularly lengthy inquiries talk to the existence of a culture that may not have changed. That culture tends to be one of silence and one in which evidence has gone missing. We all hope that that culture will have changed since the events that occasioned the inquiry, but experience tells us that, unfortunately, in many cases, it will not have done. That brings us back to the confidence that the public have in the Government and the Parliament in that respect, which is being seriously questioned. Kate Forbes: Does the member agree that inquiries all have very different purposes?”
“That leads to what we have all witnessed—a growth in the anger that people feel when they cannot get answers. Showing victims respect demands that inquiries are effective, timely and credible. It demands—as we have already heard—that lessons are learned before the harm is repeated. It demands that public money, which could otherwise be spent on health, policing or local services, is used responsibly. Michelle Thomson: Martin Whitfield says that inquiries must allow solutions to be found—I am paraphrasing—before the harms are repeated, but does he recognise that some inquiries have taken years and years, and that, as a result, by the time they have come to their conclusions, events have moved on and the situation has changed significantly? How does he propose that we address that point? Martin Whitfield: That was a valuable intervention.”
“Does he feel, as I do, that, because the Government and other agencies, such as—this was true in the case that I described—health boards, have dragged their feet, that problem has been exacerbated, as it has meant that we have not been able to get the answers in the timescales that were promised? Martin Whitfield: I absolutely agree. Wearing a different hat, I heard the Scottish Information Commissioner give evidence this morning, in which he talked about the need for people to come to him just to get an answer to their problem. They come to him not in the interests of freedom of information or to find out about the process; they simply want to get, for example, a planning certificate, but they have been unable to do so. They see the whole system as being closed against them, and the situation becomes increasingly infuriating.”
“On behalf of Scottish Labour, I am pleased to open this afternoon’s debate in support of the Finance and Public Administration Committee’s excellent report. I thank the committee and all those who contributed to the inquiry. It is right that we begin where this Parliament always begins—with the people who sit at the heart of such inquiries. Public inquiries matter because they give victims, families and communities a voice when the system has failed them. As I mentioned in my intervention, public inquiries are potentially on the cusp of losing the confidence of communities because, at the moment, many individuals see them as a last resort for getting an answer when a system appears to have closed its doors to them. Liz Smith: Martin Whitfield knows that I entirely agree with that point.”
“This is an important issue and we have to decide what we are going to do about it. Obviously, it will be the next Parliament that will decide how to reform the system—assuming that that is what it will do. It is important to reflect on the changes that could be made closer to home, to stem the need for public inquiries and to reduce their timescales and costs—including looking at other jurisdictions, as the convener mentioned. As I said at the start, public inquiries are an essential part of our democracy because of the way in which they hold the Government to account. However, it is clear that, before the leviathan gets completely out of control, reforms are necessary so that victims can get the truth that they deserve. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Martin Whitfield. You have a generous five minutes, Mr Whitfield. 14:54”
“It is little wonder that, when you attend a public inquiry—as I have done twice—the audience is replete with lawyers, with their expenses running up, on the clock. As the convener made clear, there is a concern that, too often, we see the reinvention of the wheel when it comes to background support. If we could do something to ration that, it would be immensely helpful in trying to reduce costs. The other issue that John Sturrock mentioned is just as concerning: namely, that some public inquiries can be seen by the Government, for whatever reason, as a convenient excuse to get difficult and complex issues off its desk in order to buy time. The Deputy First Minister and I had an exchange on that issue in committee—she is aware of that situation and I hope that she will take on board the concern.”
“However, I will say what I have repeated many times in the chamber and to the media: a decade on from when I became involved in the inquiry, and after literally hundreds of letters, emails, meetings and engagements with the Government and its agencies—including no fewer than five health secretaries, three First Ministers and a health board that has had seven different chief executives in that time—I was not able to provide answers to key questions that the patients had asked me. From listening to recent exchanges in the chamber about the Queen Elizabeth university hospital issue, I think that that is happening in that situation, too. That lack of transparency within the Government and public bodies is one reason why there is increasing demand for public inquiries. Alongside that, and just as importantly, there is the time factor.”
“With your indulgence, Presiding Officer, I refer again to my initial statement that I am a witness in the Eljamel inquiry. The points that John Sturrock made are relevant to the situation that we find ourselves in. He mentioned the increasing culture of blame among the public and the diminishing trust in public institutions. I am firmly of the view that one of the biggest factors is—sadly—the belief among many members of the public that the Government and its agencies are failing to provide victims with the answers that they need. No doubt, that is the reason why another public inquiry into grooming gangs was announced yesterday. I am not able to comment on what I have submitted in my witness statement to the Eljamel inquiry.”
“One challenge is that the public seek judges to lead inquiries because of their independence from the Government, the Parliament and society. How do we square that circle? Liz Smith: That is an excellent point. It gets to the nub of the issue that we face, which is that a lot of the reason why we have seen an increase in the number of public inquiries comes down to failing trust in public institutions—not only in the Government, but in the agencies that operate on its behalf. That means that those people who are victims or the families of victims see the only way forward as being to have a judge-led public inquiry—which, in some instances, might not be the best thing to do. Martin Whitfield is spot on with that comment.”
“Will the member give way? Liz Smith: If I am allowed to take both interventions, I will take Mr Mason’s first. John Mason: Thank you. Liz Smith makes the reasonable point that there is a lot of trust in public inquiries. Would she say that there is a risk that, if there are too many and they take too long, such trust might be lost? Liz Smith: I agree entirely. I will come on to the point about why we are in danger of losing trust because of the increasing number of public inquiries, but I will turn to Mr Whitfield first. Martin Whitfield: My intervention is almost a follow-on: Liz Smith talked about the confidence that the public have in judge-led inquiries. There is very little evidence of access in Scotland to non- judge-led inquiries.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Annie Wells to close on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives. 18:06”
“Martin Whitfield: The reality is that we can also point to examples of when we have not passed proposed legislation or something else has not happened, and then the issue has been kicked into the long grass never to return again. When there has been flawed legislation, we have seen Parliament move incredibly quickly when need be. Scottish Labour will support the bill on the basis that it represents a reasonable and workable framework, while we recognise that the experience of its operation might demonstrate that further refinement or adjustment is needed in future. Scottish Labour will support it at decision time because, ultimately, accountability that is delayed, confused or diluted is accountability denied to the people of Scotland. Parliament owes the people of Scotland better than that.”
“The bill is complex, and no recall system— particularly one operating within a mixed electoral model—will be perfect at first enactment. However, to address the question about flawed legislation, this Parliament and the Scottish Government are perhaps the champions of what is becoming known as legislation that is discovered to be flawed. Christine Grahame: I spare no one in commenting on legislation being flawed, including members in my own party group, and I have made such comments since I came to Parliament. As a former solicitor—as the member is, too—I cannot say that I am content to pass something that is flawed and that could, in fact, be made better.”
“We elect constituency and regional MSPs under an additional member system designed to ensure proportionality. Any recall mechanism must therefore be tailored to Scotland’s Parliament, not simply transplanted from elsewhere. That challenge has sat at the heart of the bill from when it first started its journey all those years ago. However, Scottish Labour has been clear throughout the passage of the bill that our test has been whether the system is workable, proportionate and intelligible to the public. At earlier stages, we raised concerns about unnecessary complexity. Those concerns were not abstract; they were grounded in evidence from the electoral administrators, the Electoral Commission, about voter confusion and administrative burden.”
“The Parliament exists by the consent of the people of Scotland. That consent is not unconditional; it rests on trust, integrity and accountability. When that trust is broken, the public must be confident that there is a fair, clear and credible means of response. That is the purpose of the bill before us today. Scottish Labour has long supported the principle that the people of Scotland should have the power to recall their elected representatives where serious wrongdoing has occurred. That principle has applied to Westminster for more than a decade, and it cannot be right that MSPs should be subject to a weaker or less certain standard of accountability simply because they serve in this Parliament. As has been said many times, public office is a privilege; it is not a possession. Holyrood’s electoral system is distinct.”
“We have a recall system for MPs, and there will be a recall system for members of the Senedd. Kicking this down the road into the next session will therefore leave this Parliament looking rather silly, and it will be unnecessary, because the bill works. We should not be the only part of Britain without recall. We should do the right thing and pass this bill tonight. I move, That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Parliament (Recall of Members) Bill be passed. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Graeme Dey to open on behalf of the Scottish Government. 17:35”
“[Made a request to intervene.] Graham Simpson: I am happy to take an intervention from Martin Whitfield, if I can. I have almost finished. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Be very brief, Mr Whitfield—briefer than Mr Stewart was, please. Martin Whitfield: I will be brief. It may assist people to understand from Graham Simpson when he envisages that the bill will, in fact, take effect and influence the career paths of MSPs in the future. Graham Simpson: There is no commencement date. I guess that the point that I am making is that we can afford to wait. The fact that there is no commencement date is the result of a request from the Government, which I was happy to go along with. I have done all that I can to please as many people as I can, including Mr Whitfield, and especially Mr Dey.”
“They were chosen as individuals—many will have been chosen because of their political affiliation, but voters knew who they were voting for specifically. On the list vote, they choose a political party. On that basis, Sue Webber will find that there is support for amendment 42, but she will not find such support for amendments 42A to 42C, the subsequent amendments that relate to it, because there is disagreement over the criminality element, which will be discussed later.”
“That is important, but it also underpins a reality that there is a different way out of this chamber for regional and constituency MSPs. 14:45 The member’s bill that has been introduced is fitting. It addresses the question of cost, but it also retains in the chamber the balance of the parties as it stood at the point of the election. Concern has been expressed that any system might upset the balance across the whole chamber, but this step— it allows regional MSPs to come in in accordance with their party affiliation and by choice of their party, however that choice is arrived at—would allow a maintenance of that balance throughout the process. The other important element, which Sue Webber rightly picked up on, is that our constituency MSPs arrived in the Parliament because their name appeared on the ballot paper.”
“I thank Sue Webber for her explanation of her amendments. I wish to speak to amendment 42. The member obviously received different advice from that which I received, but I am glad that she lodged the amendment. It is important that we recognise that the voyage into the chamber for members is different and that parity occurs once we come within it. The journey for regional or list MSPs is made on the basis of an internal political party decision on where people sit in the list. The purpose of the list was to occasion a balance across Scotland of the vote of people outside this Parliament, so that political parties with fewer votes would potentially have a seat here to reflect their proportion of the total vote that was cast.”
“The public and wider communities across Scotland deserve answers on what is in these files. 14:10”
“For sure, there are questions to be answered by the First Minister, who, when he was questioned about this last week by Russell Findlay and other MSPs, never mentioned at all not only that had he known about it in January of this year, but that he had known about it way back in March of last year. Nobody can doubt that the Lord Advocate also needs to account for the information in these documents and the further questions that they raise. I stress to the minister that we need to hear from the Lord Advocate in this chamber to answer those questions. I urge him to add a statement on the issue either later today or tomorrow. If he does not, I will stand up in here every day until the Government concedes. If it has something to hide, it will have to hide it.”
“If the Government does not agree to that, it will seem to some as if someone is being protected for some reason. I also look to you, Presiding Officer. When I raised a point of order on 9 December last year about ministers committing to providing information to Parliament and then offering to release it in a different way—that is, not through a statement or to Parliament—you said: “The ‘Scottish Ministerial Code’ states: ‘The Scottish Government should be accountable to the Scottish Parliament’.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2025; c 95-96.] There is no accountability if the Government simply hands out 70 pages of information and refuses to answer any questions on it. [Interruption.] The minister can groan, and SNP members can be unhappy that this is being raised, but there are questions to be answered here.”
“Does Douglas Ross agree that a Government minister has the power to indicate an intention to make a statement in order, at the very least, to clarify statements that were made to the chamber last week that may, it seems—based on what Douglas Ross is saying today—have been less than accurate? Douglas Ross: I am very concerned about that. I have had literally a few minutes to go through 70 pages. There may be yet more questions, but some questions certainly already arise from last Wednesday’s session and from this information. I therefore make a request of the Minister for Parliamentary Business and Veterans to add in a statement either later today or tomorrow. I cannot see why the minister would not want to do that or why the Lord Advocate would not want to come to the chamber to answer questions.”
“When did it become standard practice to notify the First Minister’s office under the Contempt of Court Act 1981? The Lord Advocate: I know that it is a long- standing process. I can get the details to the questioner without any difficulty. Examples can be given, dating back some significant time, and I am happy to share them—we can do that after today. I simply do not have the material here.”
“For those reasons, Scottish Labour will not be able to support the bill at decision time. 19:49”
“We must also note the contribution of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland, who has been explicit that, even with the proposed amendments, part 1 will not deliver a rights-respecting framework and that the Government still has not addressed the fundamental drafting flaws that place the legislation outside the scope of the UNCRC. When both children’s rights bodies and denominational representatives sound the alarm, the Parliament really ought to listen. Without the Government’s acceptance of Scottish Labour’s consistent requests for substantial, concrete safeguards in the bill, we cannot support the legislation. The Government has not provided those safeguards; it has not provided clarity; and it has not brought forward a bill that commands confidence across Scotland’s schools, families or faith communities.”
“Scottish Labour supports our faith schools; we support parents’ rights to make decisions about their children’s education; and we support the principle that children should be consulted in ways that are appropriate, balanced and rooted in the relationships of trust that exist between families and schools. However, the bill that is before us does not achieve that balance. Scottish Labour engaged constructively at stage 2. We also lodged amendment 24 at stage 3, which would have protected the statutory framework of denominational schools and ensured that nothing in part 1 would undermine the long- standing rights and duties in the 1918 and 1980 acts.”
“At the same time, the Government has failed to provide the evidence, the impact assessments and the policy coherence that would be required to reassure parents, whose rights are expressly recognised in Scots law and in the UN convention, about the consequences of the changes that are being proposed. In its current form, the bill has created confusion rather than clarity, and division rather than consensus. We have also heard deep concern from teachers and local authorities about workload and resources. Schools are already stretched, yet the Government has brought forward significant administrative duties and new decision-making responsibilities without providing the resources to implement them. That is not respectful or realistic, and it is not responsible law making.”
“The stage 1 lead committee concluded that ministers had failed to gather the evidence that was required, leaving the Parliament to legislate without sufficient clarity and in the face of a significant danger of unintended consequences for schools, families and children. That failure has shaped every stage of the scrutiny. The Government has also shown a striking lack of understanding of denominational settings, the legal status and religious character of which are not only long established but protected in statute. So serious have those concerns been that the Bishops Conference of Scotland felt compelled to intervene publicly, warning that several of the amendments risked eroding the distinctive ethos of Catholic education. That is unprecedented and should have given ministers pause.”
“I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I apologise to Karen Adam for having to step out during her speech. I will look it up, I assure her. Today, the Parliament was asked to consider a bill that, at its heart, addresses two of the most sensitive areas in our education system: religious observance and religious education, and the rights and responsibilities of parents, schools and children. Throughout the process, Scottish Labour has approached the bill with seriousness, respect for Scotland’s diverse communities and a deep awareness of the decades-old settlement that underpins both non-denominational and denominational schooling. However, it is now abundantly clear that the Scottish Government did not do the preparatory work that was necessary for a bill of such importance.”
“As you are aware, rule 9.8.6 states: “At the beginning of the debate on the motion that the Bill be passed, the member in charge of the Bill may by motion propose that such part of the Bill as may be specified in the motion … be referred back to committee for further Stage 2 consideration.” Children (Withdrawal from Religious Education and Amendment of UNCRC Compatibility Duty) (Scotland) Bill”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your advice. Rule 9.8.6 of standing orders would allow, at this stage, a bill that has been amended to be referred back to the committee to look at amendments amounting to not more than half of those passed. In respect of changes to part 1 of the bill—which does not exceed 50 per cent of the bill—has the member in charge of the bill approached you with a view to lodging a motion to refer it back to the committee, so that the amendments could be seen and how they would play out in the proposed bill could be considered? The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Whitfield. I have not been approached. It is for the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to provide her views on the matter that you raise.”
“I appreciate the cabinet secretary’s comments about the guidance for schools on the matter, but we heard in committee that the guidance is not always clear and that, when it is clear, it is followed with very variable degrees of felicity across the country. However, I am grateful for her comments about her preparedness to look at the handbook in future to see whether we can get a little more clarity. I press amendment 6.”
“I hope that Maggie Chapman accepts that. Maggie Chapman: I think that I heard the word “mistake”, but I accept what Stephen Kerr has now said in his intervention. Amendment 22 would support children’s rights under articles 12 and 13 of the UNCRC—article 12 contains the right to be heard and article 13 contains the right to information—by ensuring that children have the information that they need to make informed and clear decisions. Obviously, schools should ensure that the information is provided in formats that are accessible to children and young people and their families. Amendment 22A would go further, clarifying that all public and grant-aided schools should be subject to the duty to provide information.”
“My amendments would clarify that by replacing “instruction” with the term “education”, helping to avoid that confusion or conflation. Amendment 11 would clarify the language on the removal of the parental opt-out from RME as a classroom subject, which we agreed to at stage 2. To address the cabinet secretary’s concern about unintended consequences, I note that the amendment refers only to section 8 of the 1980 act, but I appreciate that that may not be enough to sway the Government. Amendment 22 would require non- denominational schools to provide pupils and parents with information about RO, including its format and content. That is not a mistake, as Stephen Kerr seemed to suggest. It is intentional. Stephen Kerr: To be clear, I did not say that it is a mistake. I said that it was a technical issue.”
“We will come to this in a later group of amendments, but that is also why my officials have been engaging directly with SCES and with schools in relation to how the statutory guidance will be adopted and taken forward. All of that will be undertaken in conjunction with SCES and with the Catholic church more broadly, which is stipulated as a mandatory consultee. I ask members to vote against all the other amendments in group 1, because although they are, as we have heard, well intentioned, they are unnecessary and likely to create confusion in our legislation. 16:15 Maggie Chapman: My amendments 6 and 11 seek to clarify the terminology and help to modernise the language in the 1980 act. Religious instruction is often considered to be the same as religious observance.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always through the chair. Jenny Gilruth: The point that I was making is one that I have discussed with SCES. There is an issue in relation to drafting. I would have preferred it if Mr O’Kane and I had been able to work together on an amendment on the issue, but, although he and I met and discussed the point, that was not the case in the end. There is a risk here of creating confusion or of creating a false impression that modifications in the bill will, in some way, affect legislative provisions that they do not actually affect. The bill will not affect denominational education in the way that the member suggests. However, I appreciate Mr O’Kane’s point about the concern expressed by the sector, which is why I have spent a great deal of time engaging directly with the Catholic Education Service.”
“Any work will need to be undertaken in a sensitive manner and done directly with SCES, which is included under the mandatory consultees that are set out Elena Whitham’s amendment 21. That is how the system currently operates and that is provided for in national guidance, so there has been no change in that respect. I encourage members to support amendment 21, which allows guidance to be issued. Pauline McNeill: I did not understand what you meant, cabinet secretary, when you spoke about the 1918 act. It is a century old, but it is still the law. It does not really matter how old that act is, and we have laws that are much older than that. The 1918 act is really important for denominational education, so can you clarify whether that is the source of your technical problem with the amendment? Do you accept that it is still the law?”
“Does she also recognise that the Scottish Catholic Education Service has suggested that the proposals that RO should be “sufficiently objective, critical and pluralistic” have the potential to create ambiguity and to be open to interpretation or to potential challenges about the denominational nature of education in Catholic schools? Jenny Gilruth: I am not sure I would go as far as to recognise all of that critique, but I have discussed some of the challenges with SCES and directly with Barbara Coupar in relation to how the bill will operate in Catholic schools. Mr O’Kane will recall that my former employment, before I became an MSP, was in a Catholic school and I very much recognise that the division between RO and RME is inherent to the culture and faith within Catholic schools.”
“I make Mr O’Kane aware that I discussed the content of that amendment with the Scottish Catholic Education Service only last week and that I raised some of our concerns about the anomalies that might arise as a result of the way in which the amendment has been drafted. The Government’s preference is for members to, instead, support amendment 21, which allows for guidance to be issued and puts into statute the requirement for denominational schools, including those belonging to the Scottish Catholic Education Service, to be consulted on that guidance. The guidance that currently exists is not statutory in nature, which means that amendment 21 would arguably give further clarity and protection through legislation. Paul O’Kane: The cabinet secretary supports amendment 21.”
“I again say that SCES will, of course, be part of the mandatory consultation that is set out in Elena Whitham’s amendment 21. Paul O’Kane: Notwithstanding the cabinet secretary’s technical point about amendment 24, she seems to want to accept it in spirit. Will the Government support that amendment today and will it put clearly on the record, for the avoidance of doubt, that those two pieces of legislation are supported? This is the moment for Parliament to do that in our modern context by using an avoidance of doubt amendment, which I think is important. Jenny Gilruth: I very much appreciate the sentiment behind amendment 24.”
“However, I appreciate that amendment 24 likely aims—as we have already heard this afternoon— to give reassurance in response to concerns from the denominational sector that the bill will undermine the existing protections for denominational schools. To reassure Pauline McNeill and other members, I again put on the record the fact that the Government remains unequivocal in its support for denominational schools. We very much recognise the vital role that those schools play, in relation to religious observance and religious education in those settings. That will be evident in the Government’s position on a number of amendments that will provide clarity, and it will also have been evident from my consistent engagement with the Scottish Catholic Education Service throughout the passage of the bill.”
“Paul O’Kane’s amendment 24, which we have heard commentary about from members this afternoon, provides that the changes that will be made to the 1980 act by part 1 of the bill would have no effect on “section 16 or 21 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980” or on “section 18 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1918.” The amendment therefore includes reference to a provision that has not been law for more than half a century. It might create a level of confusion by giving the false impression that the modifications will, in some way, affect those or other unreferenced provisions in legislation, which they will not.”
“That speaks to the broader point of the requirement to consult the mandatory consultees who are also stipulated in Elena Whitham’s amendment 21. I hope that that gives him some degree of comfort. For the reasons that I have set out, I cannot support amendments 22 and 22A. I would, however, be happy to consider looking at how the school handbook regulations might be updated alongside the development of the accompanying guidance, to ensure that parents and pupils get that important information in relation to religious observance and their associated rights that sit alongside that, so that they can make informed decisions accordingly.”
“The cabinet secretary is talking about the guidance. What thought has been given to the depth of the guidance? As former teachers, she and I will both have received guidance in the past, so we know that, sometimes, it goes to the nth degree on how something is delivered, whereas other guidance contains just top-line phrases that, in times past, during in-service training days in particular, we might have struggled to implement. Jenny Gilruth: I am sure that Mr Whitfield and I both have fond memories of the many in-service training days that we spent as teachers. I draw his attention to amendment 21, in which, under the requirement in proposed new section 9C(5)(a) of the 1980 act, “Ministers must publish guidance issued under subsection (1) … within … 12 months”.”
“If the Government is unwilling to do so, we suggest that a committee bill might be required in the next parliamentary session. We agree with the need for freedom of information reform, but, for the reasons that I have set out, we do not recommend that the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the bill. 14:44”
“We did not think that the section 18 proposal to create an offence of destroying information with intent to prevent disclosure in the absence of an information request was an appropriate or proportionate approach to delivering cultural change. Freedom of information reform is a substantial and complex endeavour. The work that Ms Clark has done on the bill has been incredibly valuable in highlighting the need for the freedom of information regime in Scotland to be updated. However, given the need for greater development of many of the bill’s provisions, we do not think that the bill is the most effective vehicle for delivering that change. Instead, the committee considers that the Scottish Government should use its resources to take legislative action to update freedom of information law.”
“We note the arguments for the presumption in favour of disclosure in section 1, but the necessity and material effects of the change are unclear, given that stakeholders noted that there is already such a provision in FOISA. Furthermore, although we agree that introducing a proactive publication duty would reflect the original intention of FOISA, we note the concerns of stakeholders about the potential costs and challenges of the proposal. Again, we think that further consultation is required. We found the financial memorandum to be largely speculative on the potential for the proposal to lead to savings.”
“However, we were not persuaded by the Government’s argument that the First Minister’s veto power should be retained, because other safeguards exist regarding the disclosure of sensitive information. The bill intends to promote a broader cultural change in public bodies towards greater openness and transparency. Provisions such as those introducing proactive publication, requiring authorities to create a statutory FOI office role and introducing a new offence relating to the destruction of information could all be seen as part of such cultural change. However, we had concerns about whether the bill could deliver that change.”